Iran deal renews question: Was this war necessary?
IRAN DEAL RENEWS QUESTION: WAS THIS WAR NECESSARY? It is perhaps the most fundamental question of the Iran war. If the goal of the war was to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and if the U.S. attack of June 21, 2025 either obliterated or substantially damaged Iran’s nuclear facilities, and if additional targeted bombing could have finished the job of destroying those facilities, why was it necessary for the United States, along with ally Israel, to go to full-scale war against Iran at the end of February 2026, targeting a broad range of targets, assassinating the country’s supreme leader as well as other key figures, and setting off further war and an economic debacle that may or may not be resolved by the current peace negotiations?
TL;DR
- A fundamental question persists regarding the necessity of the full-scale war against Iran initiated in February 2026, following a US attack in June 2025 intended to halt Iran's nuclear program.
- The 2025 bombing, described by President Trump as having "obliterated" Iran's nuclear facilities, is assessed in retrospect to have set back their programs by at least one to two years.
- Despite the setback to Iran's nuclear capabilities, including its "conversion" capacity, the Trump administration initiated a broader war eight months later, citing reasons such as destroying Iran's ballistic missiles, navy, ability to arm proxies, and ultimately preventing nuclear weapon acquisition.
- The initial primary goal of preventing nuclear weapon acquisition seemed to shift, with justifications for the war evolving before returning to the forefront as the conflict progressed.
- The article posits that a less extensive approach, focused on ensuring Iran remained distant from acquiring nuclear weapons and allowing for future action if necessary, might have been a more appropriate course than the full-scale war undertaken.